RAC refused to help breakdown because they had dogs inside the vehicle

Mojisola

thorsoak wrote: »

As they were travelling in a MOTORHOME and had intending camping overnight Saturday for the show on the Sunday, it is reasonable to expect that they could (a) make a hot drink (b) would have sufficient blankets/bedding to keep 3 people warm and food sufficient for themselves and the 12 dogs.

As they were well-equiped, they had no reason not to get themselves and the dogs out of the vehicle.

It was a horrible experience - blaming the RAC and not taking any responsibility for their own safety might make it easier for them to cope with what happened but it isn't fair.

Mojisola

Person_one wrote: »

If a dog had got loose and onto the road because an owner with freezing cold hands lost their grip trying to hold 4 leads, then there could have been a much worse accident in which many people lost their lives.

That's exactly what happened after the accident.

thorsoak

wtfh wrote: »

the "headline" of the first post is slightly misleading.

A quick question: When the person called the rac to say they had broken down, did they tell them about the dozen dogs?

yes. Rac were also informed that the vehicle concerned was a 35' motorhome.

gettingready

thorsoak wrote: »

Whether you own one dog or three, if you take them on holiday, or just out for a drive to take them for a walk, if you have an accident/breakdown, you cannot rely on the fact that they will recover you and your dogs. It is at the discretion of the recovery driver.

Just be aware that you may not be getting what you thought you had paid for! These ladies paid the price for not realising that fact.

Ermmmmm - terrible thing to happen BUT:

1) No recovery vehicle is able to take on 12 dogs and 3 people at once.

2) The issue here was not the dogs but the size of the vehicle - THAT is what caused delay in sending a suitable recovery vehicle. Not the fact there were dogs inside.

Am I wrong?

Person_one

Mojisola wrote: »

That's exactly what happened after the accident.

They still did the right thing. Just the process of getting all the dogs out of their secure crates and away from the vehicle would have been far too risky.

thorsoak

gettingready wrote: »

Ermmmmm - terrible thing to happen BUT:

1) No recovery vehicle is able to take on 12 dogs and 3 people at once.

2) The issue here was not the dogs but the size of the vehicle - THAT is what caused delay in sending a suitable recovery vehicle. Not the fact there were dogs inside.

Am I wrong?

Err....yes. The RAC policy-holder had paid the extra required by the RAC to cover her 35' MOTOR HOME . She had - erroneously she now realises - that recovery would include dogs in crates.

Principia_2

adouglasmhor wrote: »

The RAC had in fact arranged recovery despite having had a get out in their conditions, sadly the accident happened before the specialised vehicle needed arrived.

Indeed, but you would hope that procedures were in place so that a disabled person wouldn't be left for a few hours sitting in car on the hard shoulder, for precisely that reason.

gettingready

thorsoak wrote: »

Err....yes. The RAC policy-holder had paid the extra required by the RAC to cover her 35' MOTOR HOME . She had - erroneously she now realises - that recovery would include dogs in crates.

And it would - once a suitable vehicle has been despatched/arrived to tow.

As other people said, first a small car is send out to check if the broken down vehicle can be fixed.

They can not assume every broken down vehicle will have to be towed away, can they?

The fact they had dogs in there got nothing to do with the time it took to check if repair is possible/order and despatch a suitable tow vehicle.

So many people try to make it into "they were not helped because of the dogs" but to me it looks like the problem was the size of the vehicle, not the fact there were dogs inside.

Principia_2

Mojisola wrote: »

As they were well-equiped, they had no reason not to get themselves and the dogs out of the vehicle.

It was a horrible experience - blaming the RAC and not taking any responsibility for their own safety might make it easier for them to cope with what happened but it isn't fair.

If they had got the dogs out and some of the dogs suffered because of that then I expect you would be blaming them for that too.

If they had managed to unload six dogs and the lorry had crashed into them, then I expect you would find someway to blame them (not moving fast enough maybe?)

Whatever you, personally, would have done, the consensus is to leave your animal in the car. It is therefore not unreasonable or thoughtless for the dog owners to have done this. I am at a loss why you keep saying this, a retrospective plan is always a good one, they did what they felt was the best thing to do and you know what? despite the outcome, it actually was the best thing to do.

Personally I feel the only one to blame here is the lorry driver. However I wonder whether, in view of the danger of waiting on the hard shoulder, perhaps breakdown companies should always aim tow people off of the hard shoulder asap, even before trying to fix the problem at the motorway side. Equally if a camera catches someone on the hard shoulder who hasn't broken down, points and very substantial fine should be given out.

Principia_2

Principia wrote: »

and you know what? despite the outcome, it actually was the best thing to do.

I just want to expand on this idea. In the vast majority of accidents a seatbelt saves lives and prevents more serious injury. It is always a good idea to wear a seat belt. Always.

In a small amount of accidents, a seatbelt is a hinderance and can lead to someone's death. If someone has worn a seatbelt but died because they couldn't escape from the car - it was still the best thing to wear the seat belt.

You cannot anticipate what kind of accident you are going to be in so you follow the recommendations and rightly so. Occasionally that will not work out well, but it is always the best thing to have done.